Somehow, in the same breath as a discussions today over whether Prime Minister Johnson actually said bodies could 'pile high in their thousands' (something the government denies) you'll probably still also hear about whether his fiance Carrie Symonds has 'undue control' over him.
As the mud-slinging between the government of Boris Johnson and allies of his former advisor Dominic Cummings becomes increasingly frantic, Carrie (mother of Johnson's son Wilfred) has become key to the discussion - to the extent that yesterday Conservative ministers came out to back Symonds (who is unelected, but a Conservative activist and former Head of Communications) against what they branded sexism.
Lord Goldsmith said she was being subjected to '1950s sexism' while Caroline Nokes (Chair of Parliament's Women and Equalities Committee) said she was a victim of 'vile spite' and 'jealousy' as a 'competent, clever attractive woman'.
But is Symonds really being subject to sexism, or is a better interrogation of her role (and those of unelected advisors in general) warranted when No10 currently seems so mired in controversies that should be answered? And if that interrogation is warranted, is there a way we can ever manage to trust that conversation will be properly had without elements of casual sexism being thrust into the language?
It's easy to deduce there are sexist attacks on Ms Symonds. The constant implication of 'control' over a powerful man has the usual Lady Macbeth style undertones we've come to know and hate in recent times - most recently accredited to Meghan Markle, for instance and 'her' orchestration of 'Megxit'. Most of the pictures I've seen of Ms Symonds this weekend literally show her whispering into Johnson's ear - there's a clear message there. And a quick look on Google Trends will show you that there's been a huge amount of search for 'Carrie Symonds' nickname'... In November last year, during a different bout of arguing, it was claimed she was called 'Princess Nut Nut' by some who didn't like her. Funny how that has jumped to the forefront again.
There's sexism seemingly too in the fact that all the articles about the refurbishment of their No 10 home (which Dominic Cummings in a blog post called 'unethical, foolish and possibly illegal plan') talk of 'Carrie and Boris' flat' - a vibe that of course her in doors must've been running around with Laura Ashley samples in hand.
One Westminster source in the headlines this weekend said the original attack on Cummings (claiming he'd leaked the texts between the PM and James Dyson, which then prompted Cummings' blog post denial and further briefing against the PM) was Symonds' way of 'flexing her muscles' and that the PM was 'put up to it' by her.
I'll always feel uneasy when men are said to be led astray by women. Especially those in power. Firstly, there's such an awful dual narrative at the heart of it - that women are weak and need men to do their bidding, but actually also at the same time powerful enough to have a hold over them to force their hand. It's always tainted with sexuality too - while from the male side there's always jokes about them being led by their 'second brain' (LOL!) when it comes to women the messages around having a bewitching vagina are more damning. And there's also the way in which that 'power' a woman has totally lets the man off the hook. Not bumbling Boris! It's puppet master Carrie! I wonder if she also uses his finger to scan into his phone while he naps and texts people like Dyson unknowingly to him. I wonder if the privately wealthy PM (who was previously said to be 'suffering' because he couldn't hold as many lavish dinner parties with his rich friends) had no input into the redecoration of his home. I wonder if she stuck her hand up the back of the Prime Minister's jumper and made him say 'No more fucking lockdowns – let the bodies pile high in their thousands.' That seems like the worst allegation of the whole weekend (being denied by government) so maybe she's at the heart of that too? Tough trick, but maybe.
I suppose one thing to consider is, given how much we hear about unflappable Dominic Cummings, the man who has no allegiances and still refuses to apologise to the country for his lockdown trips to Durham despite overwhelming public outcry -Carrie must be quite something somehow in some way to have got so much up his nose? Or maybe it's just that those who know briefing, know that sexism always sells well.
Of course, the other side of the coin is that if elements of the briefings are true, then there could be a case to be answered. Let's set aside an unelected advisor calling into question the power of unelected advisors, for now.
The plans on the couple's Downing Street flat do look increasingly worthy of investigation - there's a case to be answered by the Prime Minister absolutely and perhaps any interrogation would call into question who of the couple was doing what, calling who and taking money from where.
One of Mr Cummings' main allegations is that Boris Johnson called off an investigation into who had leaked plans for a second lockdown because 'all the evidence' pointed to a friend of Ms Symonds (and advisor) Henry Newman. The Prime Minister, Mr Cummings claims, was ‘very upset’ as it would cause him ‘very serious problems’ with Ms Symonds if Mr Newman was fired, so asked whether the leak inquiry could be stopped. Mr Cummings said he told Mr Johnson that was ‘mad’ and ‘totally unethical’ and that he could not cancel an inquiry into a leak which had affected millions of people ‘just because it might implicate his girlfriend’s friends’.
Again, the language on a first read spikes the sexist radar - the casual talk of 'his girlfriend's friends' (when she is of course his fiance and he a Downing Street advisor) feels patronising. It could scream, 'His missus will make it unbearable in the bedroom for him!'
But of course, if it's true, if policy is being stopped and started for the protection of anyone's allies, that should be investigated. Increasingly it feels like the public are sick of hearing about infighting amongst those never elected, and them wielding power to their own gain - and that of their friends.
Both things can be true - someone can be subjected in sexist language and, separately, have a case to answer. If anything, the sexism, which often is used to belittle, is in this case belittling what could be valid arguments and investigations that need looking at. It's only in tidying away our outdated tropes of relationships and women's 'power' over men that what really happened can be examined.
The government has a lot of questions to answer about the last year. They hastily deny the 'piles' of bodies comments, sure - but is 127,000 plus people dead in this country from covid not enough of a pile? Enquiries are needed, investigations have to come, people deserve to know how the government got it so wrong. If we can do it by focussing our targets and proper inquiry, instead of sexist headlines and slurs, we'd all be better off.